April 11, 2013

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

What disturbed me was the assertion in the writings that the public accommodations provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were pernicious. And when I said that at the conference, a lot of the participates immediately challenged me. Did I think the law was right?!! This is what I mean by the excessive belief in the libertarian principle at the abstract level. These folks -- including [Reason Magazine's Ron] Bailey, I think -- would have left restaurants and hotels to continue discriminating against black people as long as they pleased. Someone asserted that the free market would solve the problem better than government regulation. I said that the restaurant in the case about the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in fact made more money by seating only white customers and serving take-out to black people. One other person at the table agreed, but the point was pushed past. It didn't fit the abstraction. I thought the failure to deal with this point was very damaging to the credibility of what we were reading and talking about.

Much more at that second link. What we were reading and talking about — at a big, well-funded conference — was "a slim book touting a political philosophy that was used in its time very specifically to oppose civil rights and desegregation."

Too many people at the table wanted to talk -- at length and repetitiously -- about abstractions, such as the meaning of the word "virtue." I found this perverse and offensive.... Why should I respect this man [Frank] Meyer at all to want to engage with his book? He wrote screeds in the National Review urging the southern governors to take over the National Guard and fight off school desegregation!

I have no idea if Rand Paul has the cold inner core that I saw amongst the libertarians in 2006. I would like to like him. But this point about private discrimination and the free market... Paul needs to tell the truth!

The discrimination that pervaded the deep South was part of a government-enforced system of semi-apartheid. IIRC, C. Vann Woodward argued a long time ago that Jim Crow laws were enacted to stop the growing commercial and social interaction between blacks and whites.

It's true that some libertarians tend to be too glib about the speed w/which a free market will drive discriminatory firms out of business. Where there is a desire for discrimination by customers or workers, firms will discriminate. But what is surely true is that people pay an economic price for discriminating in a market economy.

Liberals are ludicrous when they push their doctrines to places where application of the doctrines creates unjust results. Ditto the libertarians on public accommodations laws. Their doctrine had not produced just treatment of blacks for a 100 years. I think 100 years of evidence was enough to override the doctrine.

The fact is that segregation was never maintained exclusively by the free market. There were always laws on the books in southern states that prohibited private property owners integrating, even if they wanted to. Textile factory owners, for example, were told by the law that they could hire black workers as well as white only if they had two separate sets of stairs, and two separate sets of restrooms (though it was fine if black janitors cleaned the white restrooms!). Streetcar companies were required to have segregated seating. The old south was preoccupied with the fear that, if you let people make their own decisions about their own property, some of them would decide they could make more money from both races than from just one, and would put profit ahead of community values; and so southerners were actively hostile to the free market—the agrarian conservative movement was all about putting "community values" above profit.

Now, it seems to me that the south would hardly have been so determined to enforce segregation by law if they had not had realistic fears that segregation would not survive the culturally erosive effect of free market capitalism.

I think Rand Paul is drawing the line in the right place. For anything that the government does, we should have strict race-blind equality. But for private owners—let them make whatever choices they like, and let them pay the price for their choices.

Raul's view, and I'm not a particular fan or either Paul, makes more sense and is even handed, than that of our POTUS, AG and DOJ.

In their view, the CRA is designed to be applied with a one-sided racist intent. It only applies to whites as the offender. Traditional (and newly added) Protected Minorities, though they may be in the majority can never vicitmize white people.

To be fair, we do the opposite now. There are many more benefits to being Black, and I have even heard comments from people that "It pays to be black" on occasion, and another minority friend joked he'd start a middle-class white boy scholarship if he ever got rich.

It's a tough place to draw the line, where do you have it go too far? Was Obama's EO last year to prosecute Principals for punishing too many black kids and not enough white or asian kids right? I mean, c'mon, who thinks inner-city teachers are really punishing for racist reasons?

More likely more of these kids are coming from broken homes. And so ALL of the students will now suffer.

Was regulation justified then, maybe, is it now? I can't say... Doesn't mean NO ONE is racist, but I think these BS laws just adds to it, rather than diminish it.

My personal feeling about it was and is that yes, the act was unconstitutional.

However, what was going on was not just that some private individuals were denying accommodations to Black people, or whoever, on their own hook, which ought to be their privilege if they so chose to make asses of themselves.

What was going on is that there was a pervasive conspiracy whereby a section of the populace threatened their fellow citizens with retaliative measures if they ever thought of serving Black customers, or, horrors!, renting or selling property to them.

You can't run a country that way forever, the time had come, and something needed to be done, and Lyndon Johnson did it.

If you have a better suggestion for how could have been done better, let's hear it!

There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have.

Maybe there's a way to do it and Paul (and Cruz) can figure it out, but consider the women!

Ann Althouse said "There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have.

Maybe there's a way to do it and Paul (and Cruz) can figure it out, but consider the women!"

Could we instead consider being smart? I'm not saying women aren't smart, not going there at all. Nope.

But the broader question is not whether one favors the goals of the Civil Rigths Act of 1964, which many DEMOCRATS actively opposed for substantive reasons. The greater question is whether it was within the constitutional power of Congress to enact it.

And that comes down to the age old question of whether the ends justify the means. Does a desirable end justify a wrongful means?

In point of fact, the 1964 law is not really a civil rights law, it is a regulation of commerce. Congress did not resort to its power under the 13th or 14th Amendments, it proceeded under the Commerce Clause and its flimsy precedents like the Wickburn case.

The question is whether a kid who sells lemonade and hot dogs with ketchup at a sidewalk stand is subject to the control of the federal government because the sugar in the lemonade and the ketchup on the hot dog came from out-of-state.

There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have.

???

That's an obnoxious argument, relying as it does on a stereotype of women being too emotionally sensitive to be able to understand and accept logical arguments. And more, treating it as something to be appeased and catered to.

"There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have."

So is your argument that we should repeal women's suffrage laws, since you seem to think they are emotional and illogical?

Free speech means being able to say racist things. Freedom means being able to contract and barter with customers you want to do business with.

Your argument against freedom of association is the same used by censors trying to limit free speech.

There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women

It's really a communication problem. A lot of libertarians enjoy making statements that can sound harsh or absurd absent examination, and I think it's partially for shock value to get people to pay attention. Unfortunately I think it turns off a lot of people who might otherwise agree with the philosophies and reasonings behind libertarianism if they had them explained carefully to them.

Even though there's individual exceptions, as there always will be, the fact that segregationists needed laws to enforce segregation strongly suggests that if you left business owners up to themselves, market forces would tend to disadvantage segregation. To the extent segregation was enforced through private law, rather than public law -- e.g. union membership restrictions, restrictive covenants -- these depended for their power on (a) enforcement by the government and the courts, and (b) quasi-monopolistic positioning which could effectively interfere with the operation of market forces.

Market equilibrium would probably leave some segregated niche markets, but I don't think it's totally crazy that segregationists felt the need to establish legal structures to force business owners or home owners or employers to discriminate. There's just too much incentive to cheat to maintain a universal segregationist system without the threat of the law. Especially if you're trying to control business owners, who mostly only care about money, not about abstract moral or ethical notions like "racial purity" or whatever.

Legally mandated desegregation is just the reverse image of the legally mandated segregation that preceded it. My guess is that acknowledging the crucial role that the law and courts and lawyers played in propping up segregation so long would buy more space to argue that in this particular instance unwinding the structural distortions of so many years of unjust law required another (milder) unjust law.

When you frame it as the government wielding its terrible sword against a private party with whose opinions the ruling power happens to disagree, that automatically gets libertarian hackles up. But that's not really an accurate picture -- in most cases, it's a private party who, only a few years prior, would have had the tyrannical majesty of the law on his side, forcing his competitors to segregate too.

Would libertarians agree that this justifies the remedial law? Well, probably not. But there's a subset of libertarians that recognises that there's a sort of path dependence involved in getting to their ideal libertarian state, and the argument might at least seem less obviously like shilling for oppression.

While we worry about what happened in 1964 and what it means about libertarians, the Democrats are doing this:The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people’s emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, released the information on Wednesday.

In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.” A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, government officials only need a subpoena, issued without a judge’s approval, to read emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.

"literally made me cry?" "Consider the women?" Yea Gods, Ann, what emotional pap from someone who ostensibly preports to coldly examine public policy in a "cruelly neutral," analytical way.. And you're not ashamed to admit such things? Confirming, as they do, the worst stereotypes about the irrationality of women!

Now, OTOH, if by "consider the women" you mean that women's views (irrationally emotional or otherwise) are an objective reality that must be taken into account in public policy-making and appeal for votes by a political party, why then you are on firm analytic grounds. But "literally cry?"What an open advertisement for revoking the 19th amendment! It is to weep..

Jim Crow was possible largely because it was enforced by local government. Libertarians should be able to accept a government solution to government corruption. I and most other libertarians I know do accept this.

The biggest problem with libertarians, especially those that push themselves forward, is an inability to recognize the limits of their philosophy (also true of other political theories). Libertarianism works among people who largely cooperate, but less well in other circumstances. Examples include paying for your own police (a fringe idea that should be rejected) and foreign policy (countries don't act as individuals).

But compare this to leftism which believes we should have ever increasing regulation on those who cooperate freely while making excuses for those who don't.

Libertarianism is the way to organize domestically, and we can find the right limits by moving slowly in that direction.

"There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have."

Goddamn, Professor, sometimes you can sound so intolerant and needy. "Inhuman" - way to dehumanize an entire philosophy. Sometimes Boomers can sound so childish and irrational... I'm not even willing to call it a woman thing, more like a cultural issue or mis-education problem tied up with second-wave feminism, maybe.

"There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have."

Aren't libertarians about the most are pro-choice people you're gong to find?

It seems to me that Rand Paul though a libertarian isn't likely to take positions that are unacceptable to a majority of voters except possibly national defense and even there he would probably be more out of step with conservative leaders than most voters.

I think Jennifer Rubin wants to like Paul too but her concerns have more to do with our national defense and I'm with her in that regard.

This would be a good opportunity for Paul to show why he is a Republican and not a Libertarian. The absolute view that their can be no government regulation of a business is idiotic. Yes, regulation can kill economic growth and prosperity. We see that right now! But allowing businesses to racially discriminate is not only immoral, but it's also bad business. So that would be an example of a government regulation that increases productivity and wealth for our society.

Rand Paul should announce full and complete support for the Civil Rights Act, period.

"There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have."---------------"Aren't libertarians about the most are pro-choice people you're gong to find?"

What about signs refusing service if you are not wearing shoes, or a tie. What about business that refuse to sell their services such as baking a cake or selling flowers, to gays for their wedding? Is it a Civil Right to have the service, or to deny the service?

Well, born in '63, Rand Paul could not have opposed the '64 Act. he may think it wrong now, wrongly enacted, wrongly enforced, wrongly whatever, but now we're talking history, and we all know lefties and "intellectuals" and academics hate revisionism unless it's them revisioning.

And the racism then was enforced by Democrats throughout the solid south.

Officially libertarianism does not take a position on abortion. A libertarian could conclude that abortion should be illegal at all times because it harms the baby, or he could conclude there is no harm because there is no baby. The question of when the embryo becomes a baby isn't answerable by libertarian philosophy.

there is a difference between public and private organizations. Publicly funded organizations should have no discrimination. A private organization should be allowed to choose it's members and activities. There's a difference with a private business that is open to the public. If it wants only serve those it wants, then it must become open only to members. Some will say that tax-advantaged organizations (religions) are thus publicly funded and must bow to the whim of the public.

"There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have."

Oh, for heaven's sake. I know more women libertarians than men, and more libertarian-leaning female pundits and writers than men.

Stop assuming we're children for pities sake. Adult women are attracted to being treated like adults.

Baby Boomers need to cease taking any credit for the Civil Rights Movement, when it started in the 1950s they were in at best elementary school. They were in high school in 1964 and barely in college in the late 1960s. All of the heavy lifting, whether that be legislation, marches, sit-ins or rallies were done by the generation before them.

Baby Boomers need to cease taking any credit for the Civil Rights Movement, when it started in the 1950s they were in at best elementary school. They were in high school in 1964 and barely in college in the late 1960s. All of the heavy lifting, whether that be legislation, marches, sit-ins or rallies were done by the generation before them.

The war on women is real in the sense that something real is happening under that label, and so many of you GOP people are determined to lose.

Here's another label: The Stupid Party.

Stop being The Stupid Party!

This idea, expressed multiple times above, that politics should be about reason and not emotion, spoken by people who imagine themselves to be exemplars of reason, is one of the least reasonable ideas around.

It's utterly stupid!

Quit lolling around flattering yourself and start living in the real word. Human mental processes occur within the anatomical structures of nervous system. We are not computers, and that's a good thing.

I'm sorry, but there is something repulsive about judging the Civil Rights Act as a legal abstraction. The context of civil rights laws is one of human suffering. Segregation was an enormous crime against the dignity and full participation as citizens of black people. People suffered and died to make it possible for Congress to even bring such a law to a vote.

I'm not saying a person can't criticize the law, or examine it analytically. But to examine it only as an abstraction, devoid of human concern, is perverse.

Consider an analogy. A pathological murderer gets off a minor legal technicality. Rand Paul sounds like that guy's lawyer.

This idea, expressed multiple times above, that politics should be about reason and not emotion, spoken by people who imagine themselves to be exemplars of reason, is one of the least reasonable ideas around.

I'm a male libertarian, Inga. I'm solidly pro-choice, though I do understand that the critical issue is the definition of personhood. The definition I think makes the most sense excludes a fetus; that is not the case for many other, quite sincere and decent people.

Althouse- I think you need to stop flattering yourself that the way you see things, and interpret politics, is "the real world"

For all the people who vote based on emotion, there are people who are very logical in their voting decisions. The people here who are disagreeing with you are doing so because that's how they actually think. You want to change them, under the guise that they aren't thinking right, aka in a real way.

"But allowing businesses to racially discriminate is not only immoral, but it's also bad business. So that would be an example of a government regulation that increases productivity and wealth for our society. "

1. It's immoral to claim the power to force people at gun point to work for them. If I don't want to associate with you - what right do you have to force me to?2. The anti-discrimination laws led directly to bussing, labor laws and affirmative action. I don't think anyone could show how that increased the wealth of the nation.3. Don't forget that the entire "diversity" business - lawyers, administrators, and the like grew out of the idea that government has a right to decide who you hire, fire and deal with. Don't tell me it made America free and more prosperous.

Ann Althouse said... "The war on women is real in the sense that something real is happening under that label, and so many of you GOP people are determined to lose."

Please Obama voter, tell us more how if Republicans just were Democrats everything would be just peachy. "Real" does not mean what some racist towards Ben Carlson aging feminist has going on in her unreasonable little head.

This idea, expressed multiple times above, that politics should be about reason and not emotion, spoken by people who imagine themselves to be exemplars of reason, is one of the least reasonable ideas around.

It's utterly stupid!

Alternatively,

The party you've spend most of your life voting for - the Democrats - is the emotional one, and the other one gets to be the reasonable one thereby offering a stark contrast.

"There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have. "

Translation: math is hard and I am just a girl. Giggle, giggle, giggle.

The most inhuman thing is to give up logic and reason and lower yourself to a level of an emotional and illogical creature. Are we humans or animals?

The war on women is real in the sense that something real is happening under that label, and so many of you GOP people are determined to lose._____________

If all it takes to make something "real" is for the Political Opposition to come up with a name for people who - very reasonably- oppose their policies, then every political accusation is real.And when it is, as this is, based on a very Democrat idea, then he's, the GOP is going to "lose" that.

Such are the word games politicians play. This is how being against Affirmative action becomes a racist position, too embarrassing for high school students to write about.

This is how TEA Party people became racist. They are racist in the sense that many people have given them that label, and believe it. They will lose their low-tax, anti-Obamacare argument because they are determined to be racist about it.

Never mind so many of their critiques were right. They were racist. Their ideas are toxic.

"This idea, expressed multiple times above, that politics should be about reason and not emotion, spoken by people who imagine themselves to be exemplars of reason, is one of the least reasonable ideas around."

Ann, you are an emotional wreck, and you detest people who are trying to treat you as a person of reason and logic. Your lack of critical thinking already pushed you to vote for Obama, and now you are raging against one of the fundamental human rights - the freedom of association. Don't you see that our civilization is on the brink of bankruptcy because of people who refuse to think, and prefer to rely on emotions and primitive instincts?

Inga, that's an asinine challenge. Most libertarians with a strong opinion on the topic already know which definition they prefer, and for what reasons. It's not as though, even if everyone calling themselves a libertarian were to agree, that would suddenly become the acknowledged standard. When will the Democrats do it? Aren't they still relying on facially-absurd, tortured ephemera so as to avoid that whole sticky mess?

It's not a matter of getting one particular party or movement on board with a single understanding of the definition. Particularly when talking about movements that are umbrellas covering a fairly wide variety of ways to get to generally similar conclusions, like libertarians. It's a matter of getting that critical issue to be the one under discussion.

spoken by people who imagine themselves to be exemplars of reason, is one of the least reasonable ideas around.

It's utterly stupid!

Quit lolling around flattering yourself and start living in the real word. Human mental processes occur within the anatomical structures of nervous system. We are not computers, and that's a good thing.

I recognize that humans are emotional creatures. But human beings are also capable of reason. I believe that we should strive to approach every issue in as rational and results oriented way as possible, not because I am (or believe myself to be) unemotional or inhuman or uncaring, but precisely because I am emotional and a do care about what happens to us as a species. I believe we should do what works, what has proven to work in the past, what will yield the best possible results. This requires the exercise of reason,

I don't advocate divorcing all emotion from policy decisions, but I do advocate recognizing emotional responses and factoring that into decision making processes.

I have stated many times here on Althouse that abortions should be limited to the first trimester, or 18 weeks at he latest. Democrats as a party are fence sitting on this issue also, also not admirable. Lefties also come in all shapes and sizes.

"Libertarians appear to be purposefully vague on their abortion stance. Fence sitting. Not admirable."

So libertarians are criticized as extremists when applying their philosphy too far, and criticized for fence sitting when they recognize limits. It all makes sense if your only purpose is to criticize.

"The war on women is real in the sense that something real is happening under that label, and so many of you GOP people are determined to lose."

Is that a war on women just a war on single women or all women?

Married women apparently don't feel like they're under attack from the Republicans gauging by their voting pattern. Married women vote overwhelmingly for Republicans so I guess the real war on women as perceived by women is the threat that big government surrogate daddy/husband won't take care of them, them as in single women, single mothers.

Original Mike, so libertarians would not be in favor of the new heartbeat law in North Dakota? Isn't this big government interfering in a woman's choice? What if every single state would adopt such a law, would libertarians be in favor?

Philadelphia abortion clinic horror:We’ve forgotten what belongs on Page One. “Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations? It’s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell’s former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart. . . . ‘Chaos’ isn’t really the story here. Butchering babies that were already born and were older than the state’s 24-week limit for abortions is the story.”

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Care to elaborate?It is a label, one stamped on your forehead by the DNC: Emotional Trainwreck, Easily Intimidated.

Does that make you angry? Sad? Anything? I'm no computer. That would piss me off.

You exhort the Republicans to stop being The Stupid Party. Agree! But don't get all upset when Republicans (conservatives, libertarian) exhort you to stop being part of the Party of the Stupid.

Here's what I see happening under that label: Women are being told that it's okay, even preferable, to think emotionally rather than analytically and critically. Women are being coopted and used as political props, cartoon figures straight out of the 1950s to support expansive government power and control. Women's disempowerment. And it's voluntary. Yay team.

There may indeed still be a Libertarian liberty to hate less than pure white people in your mind that does remain safely beyond a 14th Amendment remedy, but the GOP lead Armies of the Republic ended forever the debate about who had the power under the Constitution to stop it from being demonstrated in public venues.

That lack of power practically ended in early September, 1864, but Congress waited another 100 years before using it's power.

On the topic of emotions, emotions aren't knowledge. A strongly negative emotional response to something doesn't tell you something new, it's at best a tip to stop and examine why an issue or argument causes you such distress. The Professor literally cried upon learning that libertarians would allow discrimination between private actors. Would the Professor literally cry upon learning that libertarians would allow discriminatory speech? The two situations are directly analogous to a libertarian (the right to free speech permits wrong speech, the right to freedom of association permits deciding who to associate with stupidly/wrongly). Perhaps the extreme emotional response was her brain's way of pointing out it's extreme cognitive dissonance.

But all that's just speculation, as she hasn't really explained her problem with freedom of association. Probably for the best. That argument never turns out well for the side she's taking.

"Original Mike, so libertarians would not be in favor of the new heartbeat law in North Dakota? Isn't this big government interfering in a woman's choice? What if every single state would adopt such a law, would libertarians be in favor?'

I don't know what the Libertarian Party has or will say on this issue (although their platform seems to be pretty clear they would oppose it). I do not support this law because don't think it's the place of government to get involved.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Please explain how this is "fence sitting."

4/11/13, 12:39 PMWhat do libertarians think about the North Dakota heartbeat laws? Are they OK with the government of North Dakota interfering with a woman's choice, made legal nder Roe v. Wade? How is this government staying OUT of it?

Original Mike, so libertarians would not be in favor of the new heartbeat law in North Dakota? Isn't this big government interfering in a woman's choice? What if every single state would adopt such a law, would libertarians be in favor?

Speaking purely on my opinion of libertarianism, yes, yes, and no. However, libertarians would also strenuously object to the use of confiscated wealth to facilitate abortions. And I also suspect that many libertarians would believe that, whatever their policy preferences, Roe v. Wade was a bad precedent.

I would suspect many libertarians would believe that the people of North Dakota can have the law they want, because they soften are strong supporters of Federalism.I also suspect that, just like Democrats, different people would have different opinions.

But what's really nice about that definition is that it's nice and broad. Attempts to narrow the definition and exclude some live human beings have the unfortunate effect of lumping the excluders with Nazis and slave-owners, who were rather notorious for kicking some live human beings out of the class of humanity.

Inga said... What do libertarians think about the North Dakota heartbeat laws? Are they OK with the government of North Dakota interfering with a woman's choice, made legal nder Roe v. Wade? How is this government staying OUT of it?

You do realize that libertarians will have differing opinions on all these things and that no one libertarian can speak for all of them right? Just like liberals and/or democrats may have differing opinions? You do realize that it's possible to agree on certain things and disagree on others? Right?

"Quit lolling around flattering yourself and start living in the real word. Human mental processes occur within the anatomical structures of nervous system. We are not computers, and that's a good thing."

It's a good thing you're not stupid, Ann.

Just because you're not stupid and also not a computer doesn't mean that we should debase ourselves to be emotional basket cases. This is entirely unlike you.

It is not the purpose of our government to end discrimination. We have a right to discriminate. It is only in certain public arenas that we are recently forbidden to use our own judgments about people, but no law can force me to form a partnership with someone I don't choose to be a partner with. Isn't that discrimination?

Churches need not hire clergymen that refuse to worship their god.

So where did you get this cockamamey idea that it is the government's role to "end discrimination?"

I think you should get your non-stupid non-lolling, non-self-flattering, emotional bundle under control. You're not accurately reflecting the laws of our Constitution, You-a-Law-Professor, and you should know better than to say that our government is designed to end discrimination.

It's certainly true that the laws should protect everyone equally. But that is not the same as requiring all human interactions to be emotionless and devoid of personal preference.

"OM, because not one libertarian commenter here stated they were against it when it was passed and discussed in a thread a couple of weeks ago."-----------------------"How many libertarian commenters are there here? I bet, not many. For myself, I only read a few of the comment threads, so I didn't see the thread you're referring to."

4/11/13, 12:59 PM

OM, I bet if Althouse did a survey, many here would self identify as libertarian.

Inga, I might be able to help you out a bit: your displayed lack of coherency, understanding and good faith disinclines me to go read up on an issue to explain the range of libertarian responses to a block of wood. On the presumption that it's a limitation on abortion, it's going to come right back to that "personhood" issue, as everything related to abortion always does. If you understood the sides to that debate, you wouldn't have to ask the question, and you might not come off as such an ignoramus to those who disagree with you, besides.

This was Goldwater's big objection - the government ordering people to serve or associate with anyone whether they want to or not.

We can argue the rights and wrongs of it, but go up to Harlem and see how happy black store owners are to serve white people.

Ann Althouse said...

There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have.

For God's sake, Ann, what do you want, a man with principle (who will fight for your life, if necessary BTW) or some wuss who will knuckle under to you because some of his beliefs are offputting?

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

That's not fence-sitting. It's rather like saying it's up to each and every slave-owner to decide if they are going to own people.

And it's rather dishonest to assume property status for a baby without any discussion.

Weird how the libertarian party and the feminist movement share the same "cold inner core."

There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have.

Maybe there's a way to do it and Paul (and Cruz) can figure it out, but consider the women!

It's infuriating, but Ann is a window into the problem we have today. It's largely irrelevant whether or not a certain ideological posture is the "best" long term approach to governance. The quality of any policy argument can only be measured by whether it can win adherents in a contest with other policy arguments.

To make matters worse, the quality of the argument may have less to do with the argument itself, than who is making it.

I think that Ann routinely demonstrates that she can be sold on an idea, and that she is a proxy for others who feel as she does. However, regardless of the merit of her objections, the sale isn't being made.

And isn't the the whole point?

To be perfectly blunt, I think that we are having a difficult time finding the energy to dig down and find the way to sell anyone in a fashion that permits the buyer to sell themselves. That is how a sale gets made. They libruls have every advantage.....except the advantage of being right. The media wind is perennially at their backs. They are utterly deceitful, manipulative and craven. And it's working

I see Ann's comments such as the "canary" observation and I'm reminded of a meeting I attended where the chairman of a major studio was trying to persuade the agent of a very successful and talented writer to make a deal with the studio. The body language was compelling. The agent slouched in his chair with a look that said nothing so clearly as "c'mon, blow me".

Libertarians appear to be purposefully vague on their abortion stance. Fence sitting. Not admirable

I've never met a libertarian who was "vague" in his position on abortion. Can you give an example of one?

It is certainly true that *libertarianism* has no set position on abortion, but that is simply because there is no broad agreement on the moral status of unborn children. Most of us lean towards the legal abortion side simply because our default position, in cases where it isn't clear if the government should get involved, is "no, it shouldn't".

"Anti-abortion is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles if you believe that life starts at conception."

Maybe, but I'm having a hard time imagining how you can be "religious" and libertarian. And maybe this is wrong, but the "life starts at conception" seems to be a religious principle.

"Or do you believe that anyone who disagrees with a single plank in the party platform should reassess their political leanings?"

No. It's impossible for anyone to agree with everything in a party platform. But abortion is a big deal, and it's hard to imagine believing as a core principle that government should not interfere in people's private affairs and also supporting strict abortion restrictions.

Maybe, but I'm having a hard time imagining how you can be "religious" and libertarian.

I'm an atheist libertarian, but I've met plenty of religious libertarians. What's so strange about it?

The key thing people tend to forget is that libertarianism focuses on what it is right for the government to do. Christianity (for example) focuses on what it is right for you, the individual to do. There isn't a single place in the New Testament where Jesus says anything that could be interpreted as "the government needs to do something to stop these sinners from sinning".

Indeed, the story of Jesus is very much the story of a man who did what he thought was the right thing to matter *what* the government thought, and who was then imprisoned and murdered by the government for having done so. There's a lot in that story that a libertarian can identify with. :)

And maybe this is wrong, but the "life starts at conception" seems to be a religious principle

That human life starts at conception is a medical fact; the fertilized egg is alive and genetically human. The real question is when human beings acquire human rights. THAT question can only be answered via religious or philosophical means, which is why there is so much disagreement.

There's a inhumanity vibe to the libertarians, and it's something that's offputting to women, generally. If the GOP wants to go there, they are going to lose the women even more than they already have.

???That's an obnoxious argument, relying as it does on a stereotype of women being too emotionally sensitive to be able to understand and accept logical arguments. And more, treating it as something to be appeased and catered to.

As a woman and a libertarian leaning conservative, I find that rational insulting and obnoxious. Women are such frail emotionally charged creatures that we can't logically look at arguments.

BTW: I agree with Paul about the free market being able to take care, eventually, of the issues. The government taking away property rights and the right of association, while laudable to try to stop the immoral discrimination of blacks, has just created more problems. More government overreach and the erosion of ALL of our rights.

SSM is a prime example of this. If you have a catering company and do NOT wish to be forced to do business with a gay couple catering for their marriage, because you have religious objections. Too bad... you are FORCED to do this whether you want or not.

If you are a business that wants to allow smokers into your property ....Tough titty. You have to ban or discriminate against some people.

If you are a Boy Scout troop and don't want to have homosexual men sleeping in tents with your little boys. Too bad. You have to associate.

The who picking and choosing by the government as to who you must or must not do business with who you MUST and must NOT associate with.

Libertarians believe that these decisions belong to each individual and not to the government.

OM: There's actually a very, very small minority of libertarians who believe that the laws of men are invalid, idolatrous attempts to supplant the law of God.

While "life starts at conception" is nearly ubiquitously associated with religion, it's really just the philosophical position that a "person" is a "living human being". It'll probably take contact with aliens or the first dolphin novelist to finally kill that position.

BTW: I agree with Paul about the free market being able to take care, eventually, of the issues.

Interestingly, there were black civil rights leaders who agreed with him about that, too. Racial segregation and discrimination in the South weren't just tolerated by the government -- they were *required* by the government.

I think it is absurd to claim that live begins at conception. The only thing more absurd than that is claiming that there is some other point at which life begins. And yet, I'm pretty sure that life begins.

You can use science to make different arguments about when a fetus achieve personhood. For example, you can argue that a fetus becomes a person when higher brain activity begins (which is something like 6 to 8 weeks I believe)?

I'm really trying to figure out the "stupid party" comments, Anne. Are you 1) recommending that the GOP improve their game by becoming more manipulative with respect to voters' emotions or 2) recommending that the GOP give over to interest group politics by encouraging the kind of rent-seeking and celebration of victimhood that has become our cultural norm. During the last Bush administration, Republicans had a high degree of political success with the former (and were widely castigated for being so cynical), but I'm afraid the Republicans are never going to be able to out pander and out promise the Democrats -- W's presidency bears that out, too.

In either event, what it sounds like to me is that you want the Republicans to become Bill Clinton. David Cameron appears to be trying this trick and tearing his party apart in the process. The next election will not be a happy time for the Tories.

As a woman and a libertarian leaning conservative, I find that rational insulting and obnoxious.

Sorry DBQ, but Althouse has already spoken for you. She did not qualify her remarks with "offputting to some women" or "offputting to liberal women," she simply said "offputting to women" period, presuming to speak for all women.

What you think does not matter. In fact, women are not allowed to have their own opinions on things. Someone else is here to do that for you.

No, it is not for us to "bestow" personhood on anyone. One is a person or not by virute of the nature of the entity and, in the case of the species homo sapiens, an individual living human being is a "person" by virtue of being individual, alive, and human.

About what? Was Paul in a position to oppose passage of the act? Was he even born?

It looks like the truth is that he "likes " the Act, "abhors racism" and is uncomfortable with the federal gov't telling people how to behave in certain instances involving private discrimination. So?

Not everyone is comfortable with the liberal credo that "the ends justify the means" as long as the liberals in question think the "ends" are "good." The logical extension of the credo rationalizes Presidential lying, election fraud, etc., since Dems in power is "good."

Remember what I said about the folly of arguing with those who have thrown reason away (and then said they have no interest in it)? The Supreme Court already knows the truth -- they've been told it by one of their own -- but they do not care.

However one answers the metaphysical or theological question whether the fetus is a "human being" or the legal question whether it is a "person" as that term is used in the Constitution, one must at least recognize, first, that the fetus is an entity that bears in its cells all the genetic information that characterizes a member of the species homo sapiens and distinguishes an individual member of that species from all others, and second, that there is no nonarbitrary line separating a fetus from a child or, indeed, an adult human being.--Justice White, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (1986)

Any libertarian women here who care to weigh in on their stance on abortion? I haven't heard any here on Althouse that were pro choice

Then you haven't been listening. But what else is new?

I have stated....often.....that while I personally object to abortion, I am not going to try to stop you from murdering your own children. I WILL try to stop you from making me and others PAY for your actions through subsidies to things like Planned Parenthood and making us pay for the health insurance that will pay for your murdering of your children.

It is your CHOICE and I don't feel that it is a good choice and really wish that it didn't exist at all except in very rare cases and ONLY in the earliest stages before there is viability. (That is pretty nebulous too since viability is being obtained at ever earlier times.) After a certain point in time, I think that abortion is out and out murder.

However, as a libertarian I should not have the power to stop you and YOU shouldn't have the power to make me help you do it.

I feel the same about drugs. Don't use them, but it is your choice. If you want to kill yourself...ok. If you are committing crimes to get your drugs or killing someone else with your drugs, that is different. But you can do whatever you want with your own body.

So now you can say you have heard an opinion. Try not to forget it the next time you derail a thread into an endless cesspool of abortion discussion.

Conception is not arbitrary. It is the line at which a separate and individual being comes into existence.

When a living ovum from one person unites with the living sperm of another person, then there is a new being. If the ovum and sperm come from humans, then the new being is a -- follow closely now -- a human being. If the ovum and sperm are alive, then you have a living human being. If either the ovum or sperm are not alive, then you do not have a living human being.

That living human being begins at conception. He or she does not magically go from being inanimate to alive at some point during pregnancy. The very fact that such entity is consuming nutrition and growing demonstrates that he or she is alive.

You know, this really only became disputable when people decided that they wanted to kill that living human being. Then to justify that, they needed to engage in such irrational arguments that what is involved is not living or human or an individual being. But that is not surprising. The same arguments were used to dehumanize and depersonalize blacks and Jews.

No Iggy, but if the fertilized egg is fully human and an American, should it not have a Social Security number?

I don't see why it should, unless we can use it to claim them as dependents on our taxes.

Be included in a Census maybe?

I wouldn't care one way or the other on this, as long as abortions were illegal. Not much point in counting people who you're just gonna kill anyway. ( You're welcome to apply that to death row if you want. )